From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Are the English words "Judea" and "Judah" transliterations of the same Hebrew word? --i.e.יהודה ("Praise", Standard Hebrew Yəhuda, Tiberian Hebrew Yəhûḏāh)

If so, how come one says "Kingdom of Judah" and "Kingdom of Judea" to mean two different kingdoms, the former being that which resulted from the division of Kingdom of Israel, the latter being that which succeeded the former and where Herod was a king? I checked out French pages and they also seem to be distinguishing between "Judée" and "Juda." Are these words sometimes interchangeable? I wonder how these two entities are distinguished in Hebrew. --Oichiro 10:38, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Hebrew word יהודה is used to refer to both Judah and Judea. There isn't much of a difference—the former is the Biblical transliteration of the word, and I think the latter is the Roman transliteration of the province name. (The Biblical transliteration is a good deal more accurate in its vowelization, for some reason.) It seems to me that the terms are largely interchangeable. I think this should be merged into Kingdom of Judah. --Simetrical 23:36, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Simetrical. So, while they are actually transliterations of the same single Hebrew word, they have come to mean two separate kingdoms in English. But when you say "I think this should be merged into Kingdom of Judah," you don't mean these two English expressions actually signify the same single kingdom, do you? If we start calling these two kingdoms -- what we call "Kingdom of Judah" and "Kingdom of Judea" in English today -- both "Kingdom of Judah," we would need a way to distinguish the two kingdoms, for example, calling them "the First Kingdom of Judah" and "the Second Kingdom of Judah. --Oichiro 07:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I'm writing these comments here rather than edit the article as I don't want to damage anyone's work:

When referring to the geographical region, the term "Yehuda" is used by Hebrew speakers - not neccessarily Zionists. By the same token, non Hebrew speaking Zionists would probably use "Judea/Judah". Also, only the northern half of Judea is in the West Bank, so the "West Bank"/"Judea and Samaria" issue is not really relevant here, as long as the focus is the geography/history of this specific region. IMHO the most "encyclopic" approach would be better to simply list the Arabic/Hebrew/Latin names, and explain that state ownership of the northern part is under political dispute (possibly adding a link to a "West Bank" article) -- Nir

These terms cannot be used interchangeably. Judah refers to a political/administrative entity in the Judges and Monarchy periods. Judea refers to a political/administrative entity in the Greek and Roman periods. Neither term has anything to do with current territorial designations. Cush (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


"until 63 BCE - independent Jewish state" - what happened to the Persians, the Greeks, etc? --Zero 02:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Fixed (after 18 months!) Now, would somebody kindly supply the pre-Canaanite chronology? MeteorMaker 09:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is still reading these......A History of the Jewish People edited by H.H. Ben-Sasson is one of the most authoritative guides. It doesn't deal with religion as such, except insofar as that contributed to the development and stability of Jewish culture over many centuries of being subjects of others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadathdreamques (talkcontribs) 02:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


Per WP:MOSDATE#Eras ("be consistent within an article"), I propose to bring this article to consistent BCE/CE notation. I chose BCE/CE rather than BC/AD because Common Era is more accommodative: it may be interpreted as "Christian Era". In an article as deeply related to Jewish history as this one, it would be wrong to force a notation that has certain religious connotations only, given that there is a neutral and commonly accepted alternative. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this proposal and request BC/AD be used: Please stop these foolish, intellectually dishonest "CE/BCE" euphemisms and return to AD/BC nomenclature: It's obvious that "CE/BCE" uses Dionysius's dating from the time of Christ. If you want to reject this dating system, then actually do so by picking a different dating point. To use CE/BCE, i.e. to date from the time of Christ yet refuse to mention Him, is dishonest, and dishonesty has no place in any serious encyclopedia. Not only is this "Common Era"/"Before Common Era" nomenclature dishonest, it is obviously false (at least without theological reference to the Incarnation): The world did not share a 'common era' until the advent of the world-wide web, or perhaps World War I. Thus, the CE/BCE nomenclature degrades the quality of Wikipedia through its foolishness, dishonesty, falseness, and absurdity. Please stop using it. (If you wish to accommodate non-Christians' disbelief or lack of knowledge, then you must use a new dating system entirely to be honest and professional.) -- Newagelink (talk) 10:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Tell that to the theologians who use it.[1] We've got a guideline at WP:ERA we ask people to follow. Wikipedia isn't going to stop using AD/BC or CE/BCE to accommodate someone's religioujs preferences. If you search Google books you'll see both are used in academic books. Doug Weller talk 11:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Sensible solution[edit]

Why not re-name or merge the article to better reflect what it is about, and put an end to these silly POV wars that aren't helping anyone. Suggestions include Kingdom of Judah, History of ancient Israel and Judah, Ancient Judea.

Alternatively start the article something like this: Judea or Judæa is the name given to the mountainous southern part of the historic Land of Israel, an area now divided between Israel and the West Bank.

Or the hatnote: This article is about the historic region of Judea, for the current political area see West Bank. (or similar)

OrangeDog (talkedits) 16:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Just look at TALK:Samaria, TALK:Judea_and_Samaria and TALK:Israeli_settlement and their countless kilobytes of archive pages to see how this "discussion" could have developed, hadn't the focus shifted to Samaria. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that Judea is a current geogrpahic region, not just a historical one. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
A small part of Israel is sometimes called Judea, mainly in Israel. The rest of ancient Judea is properly and neutrally called "southern West Bank". This article should reflect these facts, like it used to. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The point is, on the whole, this article is about the historical region, not the current geographic one, nor the current Israeli-Palestinian disputes. –OrangeDog (talkedits) 23:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
No, there's a decent sized paragraph describing the geographical region. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
You're right, OrangeDog. So are you, MeteorMaker.
Canadian Monkey, as the New York Times says (in its regular front-page coverage, not an op-ed), the "southern part of the West Bank" is "known in Israel as Judea." Or as ABC News puts it, "Judea is the Biblical term used by Israel for the southern West Bank, while the northern area is known as Samaria."
Mainstream RSs overwhelmingly prefer the term "West Bank" for these areas, and on those rare occasions when they do mention "Judea" or "Samaria," they usually follow it with an explanation that these are "Biblical names" that are "used by Israel," etc. It's hard to understand why this article, as MeteorMaker puts it, no longer reflects these facts.
At any rate, OrangeDog's proposals are sensible, whatever one makes of the terminological dispute.--G-Dett (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The west bank has its own article, which is different from this one. West bank is not synonymous with Judea, and there are numerous sources on this Talk page showing usage of "Judea" by non-Israeli sources, sources which MeteorMaker attempted to discredit using such flimsy excuses as "the person who used it also collected funds for the JNF". It had its comical moments, but we are past that now. Canadian Monkey (talk)
Glad we agree that this is not an article about the West Bank (which means the section Judea#20th_century shouldn't be here, like all references to the area as anything else than ancient). Since you voluntarily bring it up again: We all agree "Judea" is used as a modern term in Israel, so it's difficult to see the relevance of all the Israeli (in one case, an unknown-nationality person who works for a Zionist org in Israel) examples of usage you have brought up. 95% of the sources —19 of 20 cases — have conclusively been verified as being of Israeli origin, where it hasn't been blatantly misinterpreted (6 cases, see above). Still after 9 months, no evidence has been presented that remotely supports the claim that "Judea" is a widely used toponym outside Israel, which you need to do in order to comply with WP:NCGN. This link is primarily about Samaria, but also highly relevant to this discussion. MeteorMaker (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Canadian Monkey, my recollections of past comedies are different from yours; perhaps you can refresh my memory? What I remember is (a) MeteorMaker producing dozens of excellent secondary sources saying explicitly that "Samaria" and "Judea" were politically loaded terms used primarily by Israelis; (b) you and Jayjg dismissing that view, which was sourced to the nines, as "MeteorMaker's theory"; (c) you and Jayjg attempting to disprove "MeteorMaker's theory" by amassing primary sources purporting to show the terms' use by non-Israelis; (d) you and Jayjg calling MeteorMaker a bigot when he pointed out that many of your non-Israelis were, in fact, Israelis; and finally, [drumroll], (e) the punchline: you and Jayjg accusing MeteorMaker of "original research."
It was funny. Very funny. Sorta pathetic, too. Are we indeed past that?--G-Dett (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
feel free to reread the discussion above, where I've produced several sources, used by non-Israelies, only to have MM complain that one such non-Israeli collected funds for the JNF, and was thus tainted, or that another studied once in Israel, as so was presumably like wise tainted. 01:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
To be fair, Canadian Monkey, I've never understood why MeteorMaker felt the need to punch a hole in every primary source you and Jay collected in an effort to disprove what you called "MeteorMaker's theory." "MeteorMaker's theory" – that the terms "Samaria" and "Judea" are Biblical terms used by Israel for what the world calls the West Bank, is sourced to the nines. He's the one with the vast tranche of secondary sources saying this; you and Jay are the ones with a dubious heap of primary sources which you say demonstrate the opposite. He quite rightly pointed out that many of these primary sources were a pea-and-shell trick: you were presenting an op-ed by Israel's Australian ambassador, for example, as a "non-Israeli" source because the op-ed ran in an Australian newspaper. But I never understood why he thought he had to discredit each and every one of your primary sources, since your use of them was tout court a flagrant case of dubious original research.--G-Dett (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)As you can see, the article now makes no claims to to what the area is called now. References to modern places are made in the lead to explain where Judea was physically located. Please stop arguing about the above discussions, it is irrelevant what Israelis or otherwise call the area now. Various users have been warring with each other across numerous talk pages for a considerable length of time. It's time you reached an NPOV compromise. WP:RfC might be a good idea (leave the commenting to people other than those currently involved on the talk pages).

What is far, far more important is to find good sources for the article. These should be history books, academic journals, etc. not government press releases, blogs or other websites.–OrangeDog (talkedits) 02:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Amen, amen, and amen.--G-Dett (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I can only add "amen" to that. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

OrangeDog, what is the point of adding the pleonasm "the name given to.." before the existing description? Are we now going to go into every geographical article and add "is the name given to.." before the name of the entity? Will you be adding the lede of California to read 'California is the name given to a state on the West Coast of the United States"? Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If California were a term of largely historical and/or religious/ideological interest, rather than the universally accepted contemporary designation of the territory in question, then yes something like OrangeDog's formulation would be appropriate. Cf the lead sentence of Las Californias, a term which, like "Judea" and "Samaria," is sometimes used in contemporary contexts: Las Californias (English: The Californias) was the name given by the Spanish to the area, which today is primarily the three states of Baja California, Baja California Sur, and California. --G-Dett (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
IOW, the use of this pleonasm is in order to push, implicitly, the POV that Judea is not a current name, despite your numerous protestations to the contrary. Won't fly, sorry. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Judea is not a current name the way "California" is a current name, and that was the comparison you asked us to address. Its blend of historical interest and limited contemporary use is, however, closely analogous to "Las Californias." I don't know what IOW means.--G-Dett (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
That's where we disagree. Judea is just as current as Califoria. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
With respect, Canadian Monkey, if you think the contemporary currency of "Judea" is comparable to that of "California," this is not a "agree-to-disagree" type of problem. It's a problem of you not having read enough, or widely enough.--G-Dett (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The name "Palestine" is generally postfixed with "a name given by the Romans to spite the Jews" or similar wordings in WP articles, with emphasis on "given". Should we take the opportunity to remove those pleonasms too? MeteorMaker (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I used that phrase as it seemed to be the only thing that was agreed on, i.e. that at least someone somewhere has called the area Judea. This is perfectly neutral and avoids the endless is/was debate.
If you want to talk about the modern history of the area take it to West Bank, Israel, Palestine, Palestinian territories, etc. and allow this article to be stable, factual, verifiable and neutral. Don't edit war and don't try and impose your own viewpoint.
Also, adding {{pp-semi-protected}} doesn't actually protect the page, and one that has an expiry date in the past is especially redundant.–OrangeDog (talkedits) 21:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
So , from the bottom up: I didn't add any template. Judea is not the same as teh west bank, so there's no point in talking about the regions modern history, esp. one that appears to be delimited to the years 1950-1967 in a separate article. And finally, as you can see from the comments that followed my question, those who support your neoplasm phrasing do so because it implies the term is not current - which is not something we all agree on. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes you did[2]. That's why I removed it, yet you put it back[3]. They may support it for any reason they want, the fact is, it implies nothing.–OrangeDog (talkedits) 22:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
if it implies nothing, why do we need this pleonasm? Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
because there was no consensus on the is/was issue.–OrangeDog (talkedits) 19:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
sorry, I don't understand. How does adding a pleonasm that implies nothing impact the is/was issue? Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Because it makes no claims about whether the term "Judea" is used now, unlike using "is the name of" or "was the name of". It's also not a pleonasm; it uses exactly as many words as are necessary to communicate this.–OrangeDog (talkedits) 21:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Canadian Monkey's insistence that the modern history of the area belongs in this article, not in the West Bank article, appears particularly odd with the rationale he gives — that the areas are "not the same". Well, in that case, why should the article discuss things like the degree of Arab self-determination after 1995 or the years of Jordanian control, that only apply to the WB, in an article about an area that also encompasses a good part of Israel proper? MeteorMaker (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)For the sake of completeness, I left the C20th in the timeline as they occurred in the area described. Whether or not it was the whole area is irrelevant.–OrangeDog (talkedits) 23:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A History of the Jewish People, edited by H.H. Ben-Sasson offers an excellent history of Judea. As far as I can tell, Judea was a recognizable entity throughout the entire period from about 1000 BCE to 500 CE. Exact numbers are fungible. I'm just trying to make a point that it is a long period of history, and one page isn't enough to cover it. There is NO mention here of the First Temple, no mention of the Great Revolt. Basically this page needs a major reworking, and probably a division into pre-, early, and late development. There is too much information to write. That modern stuff can go away. At its peak, Israel included half of current Jordan, and half of Syria and Lebanon, and almost none of the Negev until the Edomites converted to Judaism. Here's a sample of early Judah: "Judah was subdivided into several districts, each with its own officials. In the south the frontiers reached the vincinity of Hebron; in the north they extended beyond Bethel; and in the west as far as Lydda and Ono. The foot-hills and the coastal territory were held by the Ashdodites". AHJP, page 179. Divide the page. That's my suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadathdreamques (talkcontribs) 02:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

chronology vs history[edit]

what's the difference? Anyway, expansion is needed for chrono section. "Muslim rule" is too general; macedonian, ptolemiac and seleucid could also be "greek rule" Mallerd (talk) 09:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

History is the description of events based on textual sources (in addition to archaeology which is based on artifacts, architecture, etc). Chronology is a timeline of events.

A note on the terms "Judea" and "Samaria"[edit]

Usage of the terms "Judea" and "Samaria" in article space as modern alternatives to "West Bank" appears to contravene 3 key Wikipedia policies: Naming Conventions, Undue weight and Neutral Point of View. [4][5] A large body of evidence [6][7] has been collected during extensive discussions (see list below) that unequivocally shows that these terms, alone and in combination, are almost entirely peculiar to Israel. As of today, no sources, reliable or otherwise, have been put forward that contradict this finding.

Discussion links (most closed, included for reference only):

MeteorMaker (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is your point? Cush (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Apologies, that's not obvious from the post. There was a fierce discussion over this terminology issue some months ago, complete with edit wars over multiple articles, and it remains largely unresolved, though this article may be the exception. The case was taken to the ArbCom, which, somewhat unexpectedly, decided to collectively topic-ban everybody involved, eight editors in all. To save the hypothetical future editors who might want to continue the ungrateful work of keeping WP terminology neutral the trouble to start from scratch, I posted the body of evidence the discussions generated, before the mass topic ban takes effect. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: This is currently the topic of a further ArbCom case, which looks likely to ban MeteorMaker from editing the page or commenting on this talk page. The current discussion on the content dispute (which MM has not linked above) is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#Draft guidelines for placename usage and further sections. OrangeDog (talkedits) 02:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: No, it's the same ArbCom case I mentioned and linked to above: the one whose proposed remedy is to blanket-ban everybody involved, regardless of whether or not they've done anything (beyond taking part in an edit war months ago). We started the case in the hope that the year-long stonewalling of the massively sourced facts above would end, and were genuinely surprised that the ArbCom chose a solution where not only the stonewalling issue remains unresolved, but also removes every editor with intricate knowledge of the facts. Hence the posting above, to save future editors trouble. See it as a testament. MeteorMaker (talk) 06:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh yeah, then I'd better link the old one. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. OrangeDog (talkedits) 11:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


This article has a definite lack of references to reliable sources. Can someone please add some? PS: references to religious organizations or otherwise religiously motivated institutions are not reliable. Cush (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Monkey was a sock[edit]

Canadian Monkey has been identified as one of a series of sock-puppets of banned sock-master Isarig. Isarig's past contributions can be found here: Former user 2 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). See Community Sanctions Noticeboard (or CSN) Isarig, CSN consensus, CSN Resolution, CSN Isarig, ANI: Isarig violating terms of mentorship for community concerns about the operation of this account. The extensive discussions there culminated in an Israel/Palestine topic ban on Isarig's account on the 30th August 2007.

In December 2007, Isarig (who had continued to edit quite properly outside the I/P topic) confessed to operating the sock-puppets Teens! and Clintonesque and was granted the right to vanish according to this deletion log and Isarig is no longer with us, wherein it is said "The user have been explained not to come back editing again as per WP:RTV, a thing they agreed to."

According to the note at sockpuppets of Nocal100 other sock-puppets operated by Isarig include NoCal100, AbetterWay, LoverOfTheRussianQueen, Millmoss, Hadashot Livkarim, Fistook, Oh, Those Russians!, and Mr. Hicks The III. Some of these accounts have been repeatedly subject to accusations of editwarring and disruptive editting.

As regards current efforts to improve Judea, this notification may lead editors to examine this diff that may have been an effort to introduce distortions to the encyclopedia. (talk) 12:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

status of the territories occupied by Israel following the 1967 law.[edit]

The territories of Gaza, East Jerusalem and West Bank, in particular with respect to recent edits reverting "occupied territories" back to "disputed territories", under customary international law are classified as occupied - the international law here does the considering, through precedence. The legal status is not disputed, but "occupied". I provided a link to a report from the ICRC (custodians of customary international law) considered to be neutral in their POV. The status of "Disputed" is an Israeli POV, not a legal POV. It is long winded, but it would be correct to say that "the occupied territories (legal status disputed by Israel)" and not just simply "disputed territories" because that is not a legal status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. "disputed" is not a legal status, but a civil matter. The territories are either occupied or they are not. There is no legal middle ground. I concur that the ICRC is a neutral POV on the matter, and support the description of the territories as "occupied". Will revert back. Suggests that occupied territories (disputed by Israel) replace "disputed territories" until a final agreement between Israel and Palestine is reached and the occupation is ended. Mojosy78 (talk) 04:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:Naming conventions (West Bank). OrangeDog (τ • ε) 12:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The article on Judea should not extend its scope to the present, or even after the 2nd century. The main article on the history of the region from AD 135 to 1948 is Palestine. The main article for the period 1948 to present is History of Israel. These periods should be considered off topic to the Judea article to avoid unnecessary scope overlap. --dab (𒁳) 16:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the well-defined geographic area of Judea. Any attempt to turn this into a patisan artcile by either side will not be welcomed. I am restoring your deletions. Any large-scale changes f this kind should be discussed beforehand and wode concensus achieved. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 17:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
no, it is about the well-defined historical geographic area of Judea. As in, well-defined in both space and time.
this is simply not the article about the modern Middle East conflict. Wikipedia has more than enough articles on that, and it is not "partisan" to prevent this one from becoming yet another clone of that topic. --dab (𒁳) 21:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

"only name used"[edit]

The source for that statement does not even back the statement, in fact it says the opposite. The source says "True, the British did not refer to the hill country south of Jerusalem as the “Judea District,” nor did they treat it as a single administrative unit, since the Bethlehem sub-district was grouped with Jerusalem and Jaffa, and the Hebron sub-district with Beersheba and Gaza". Not to mention the source that AMuseo has been adding to a number of articles is an anonymous editorial. nableezy - 06:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Could somebody please explain why an editor has added material that the very source cited contradicts and why 2 other editors have rushed to return the erroneous information without seemingly paying any attention to what they are adding? And why an anonymous editorial should be used as a source for this claim? nableezy - 06:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
the source does not contradict the article content, although the wording may have to be fine-tuned some. the source makes it clear that the term "west bank" was a transjordian invention.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Uhh, no kidding. I did not remove that part. The part that I did remove, and the part that you reinserted, is about this being the only name used for the territory "throughout history". The source does contradict that part. I would expect that you would know this because you did revert the edit. Prior to doing so, did you read the content you were reinserting and did you read the source? nableezy - 06:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Please explain in a congenial and specific manner what exactly you find problematic.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Please carefully read the first post in the section in which I already did so. nableezy - 06:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


Egypt controlled this area of land for many centuries... how is there no mention of it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Jewish connection to Judea[edit]

Do the Muslims who manage this article even realize that Judea is the homeland of the Jews? There is a reason why the words Jews and Judea are so similar. It is the same reason why Arab and Arabia are so similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

in Israel[edit]

Most of what is known as Judea is in the West Bank, it is a NPOV violation to say that Judea refers to a mountainous region in Israel as it is mostly not in Israel. nableezy - 17:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

IT's also POV to say it's in Palestine. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
No, because it doesnt say it is in the state of Palestine. It says it is in the region known as Palestine. nableezy - 20:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
But that can also be construed as a POV region since that is not the term for that region, unless you're a Palestinian. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
No, sorry, but that isnt true. The Wikipedia article on the region of the British Mandate for Palestine is Palestine (region). If you would like to argue that is not the most common name for that area you are welcome to suggest a name change at that article's talk page. But the most common name used for that entire area is Palestine, and it has nothing to do with whether or not somebody is Palestinian. nableezy - 21:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
It's call Israel, you (Personal attack removed). You can't add a protection block to change facts. (talk) 07:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Reigns of Agrippa I and Agrippa II[edit]

Since there is some confusion about the reigns of Herod the Great's grandson and great grandson, I wish herein to allay all doubts, based on the following historical records. In Josephus' Book of Antiquities (book 19, chapter 8, verse 2) we learn about the first Agrippa, Agrippa I (who is also called in Hebrew Agrippas), who was the son of Aristobulus IV, the son of Herod the Great, where he writes: "Now, when Agrippa had reigned three years over all Judea, he came to the city Cesarea, which was formerly called Strato's Tower; and there he exhibited shows in honor of Caesar." In the next chapter (ibid., chapter 9, vs. 1), we learn of Agrippa I's death: "And thus did king Agrippa depart this life. But he left behind him a son, Agrippa by name (i.e. Agrippa II), a youth in his seventeenth year of his age, and three daughters, one of whom, Bernice, was married to Herod, his father's brother, and was sixteen years old; the other two, Mariamme and Drusilla, were still virgins." Since Josephus informs us that Agrippa I only reigned 7 years, of which the first four years were entirely under Caius Caesar, it is evident that he died in the 3rd year of Claudius Caesar (see: Antiquities 19.8.2 [end]), or what was then roughly the year 40 CE. In verse 2 of the same chapter, we learn that Claudius Caesar was reluctant at first to confer upon a youth (merely aged 17) such a large kingdom, and so postponed the appointment, sending to Judea Cuspius Fadus to be procurator. In Josephus' Antiquities (book 20, chapter 7, verse 1) we read that in Claudius Caesar's twelfth year of reign, when Agrippa II finally became of an age suitable to rule over his father's kingdom, he bestowed upon Agrippa II "as a gift" the tetrarchy of Philip, and Batanea, and added thereto Trachonites with Abila. It wasn't necessary to say "Judea" because this place was already his dominion, but had mentioned these other places as being added to Agrippa's dominion since they had earlier been divided among King Herod the Great's four sons after his death and they became merely minor kingdoms (tetrarchies). By the time that Nero succeeded Claudius Caesar, in the first year of his reign, he augmented Agrippa II's power by bestowing upon him a certain part of Galilee, Tiberias, Taricheæ (believed to be Magdalla) and Julias (a city of Perea), just as we read in Josephus' Antiquities (book 20, chapter 8, verse 4). Meanwhile, Agrippa II continued to exercise the duty of king over Judea, as we read in Josephus (Antiquities 20.8.8) where it says: "About this time king Agrippa gave the high priesthood to Ismael, who was the son of Fabi." And later on (ibid., verse 11): "King Agrippa built himself a very large dining-room in the royal palace at Jerusalem." While the king may have been a "puppet king," he was still nonetheless the legitimate king of Judea. The same king Agrippa II later removed Ismael as the Jewish high priest and appointed Jesus the son of Damneus to succeed him (Antiquities 20.9.1), who too was supplanted by Jesus the son of Gamliel, by order of King Agrippa II (ibid. vs. 4). Although a vassal king, King Agrippa II had the care of the Temple committed to him as early as Claudius Caeasar's reign, just as we learn in Antiquities 20. 9. 7. But for those who assay to think that he was not the legitimate king of Judea, consider that in Josephus' book, The Jewish War (book 2, chapter 14, verse 4) it says: "At this time it happened that the Grecians at Caesarea had been too hard for the Jews, and had obtained of Nero the government of the city[...] in the twelfth year of the reign of Nero, and the seventeenth of the reign of Agrippa." By saying that Agrippa II began to reign five years before Nero's reign, here, no doubt, he is referring to the 9th year of Claudius Caesar's rein (who ruled for a total of 13 years, 7 months and 28 days, according to Epiphanius' chronology of the Caesars and their reigns in his "Treatise on Weights and Measures"), when Agrippa II (the youth) was then made the acting king of Judea, roughly in the year 46 CE, at the age of about 23 (some 6 years after his father had died) - since, as yet, there was no other kingdom committed unto his trust! And by the time when the war with the Romans had begun in earnest, and Agrippa was returning from a short visit to Alexandria in Egypt, it was this same king Agrippa II who tried to dissuade the people from fighting against Rome, as we read in Wars of the Jews (book 2, chapter 16, vss. 2-4), and where it says explicitly about him: "The high priests and men of power among the Jews, as well as the Sanhedrin, came to congratulate the king [upon his safe return]" (Wars 20.16.2). Josephus would have been a contemporary with King Agrippa II. In fact, Josephus says of this king and his father (Wars 5.4.2): "...the father of the present king, and of the same name with him, Agrippa, began that wall we spoke of; but he left off building it when he had only laid the foundation, out of the fear he was in of Claudius Caesar." It is, therefore, conclusive that Agrippa II was, indeed, a king over Judea, and this fact ought to be mentioned in this article. There is no reason to expunge this fact. By the way, the word "ethnarch" (such as used with reference to Herod Archelaus, in Antiquities 17.11.4, the king who reigned before Agrippa I) is used to define a king who rules over one-half of the territorial dominion of the previous king (see: Antiquities 17.11.4).Davidbena (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

  • All what you have written is true and I appreciate your knowledge but the sentence in the article "37 BCE–132 CE — Herodian Dynasty ruling Judea as client kings under Roman supremacy (37 BCE–6 CE, 41–44 CE, 48–100 CE, Herod the Great, Agrippa I, Agrippa II respectively), interchanging with direct Roman rule (6–41, 44–132)" is not conceived very well, in fact, it is misleading in some ways and contradicting to another wiki article Roman Governors of Judea. According to this article and well-known historical facts, Herod the Great ruled as King over Judea 37 BC-4 BC, then his son Archelaus ruled as "Ethnarch" (not King) over Judea 4 BC - 6 CE, then Judea was Roman province governed by Roman Prefects 6 CE - 41 CE, then Agrippa I ruled as King over Judea 41 - 44 and then Judea was again Roman province governed by Roman Procurators 44 - 70 and Roman Legates 70 - 135.

Yes, Agrippa II held title "King" just like Herod the Great or Agrippa I, but, unlike them, Agrippa II did not rule over Judea, he ruled only over some other territories which were ruled before him by Philip the Tetrarch (Batanea and some other areas 4 BC - 34 CE). It is true that Agrippa II exercised authority over Temple in Jerusalem, but that doesnt mean he ruled over Judea. Judea was governed by Roman Procurators after death of Agrippa I in 44. Fundamental contrast between Agrippa I rule and Agrippa II rule was that although both held title "King", only Agrippa I actually ruled over Judea territory, Agrippa II had some rights only over Temple (appointment of High Priest for example).

Main wrong and mutual contradicting claims in the sentence "37 BCE–132 CE — Herodian Dynasty ruling Judea as client kings under Roman supremacy (37 BCE–6 CE, 41–44 CE, 48–100 CE, Herod the Great, Agrippa I, Agrippa II respectively), interchanging with direct Roman rule (6–41, 44–132)" are:

  • 1. Herod the Great ruled 37 BCE - 4 BCE, NOT 37 BCE–6 CE
  • 2. Archelaus is missing, he is not mentioned at all, but he ruled over Judea as "Ethnarch" after Herod Great death 4 BC- 6 CE
  • 3. This sentence simuntaneously claims that Judea was ruled by Agrippa II 48 - 100 and at the same time Judea was under direct Roman rule governed by Roman procurators 44 - 132, which contradicts each other.
  • 4. This sentence claims that Agrippa II ruled over Judea, but, although he held title "King", he did not rule over Judea, only he was given some authority over Temple in Jerusalem. Lucullus19 (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
It is plain from Josephus that, while Agrippa II was still a "puppet king" of Rome, he did indeed begin to exercise regal power over his kingdom Judea about six years after his father's death, which was then the 9th year of the reign of Claudius Caesar. This is evident by Josephus' words in The Jewish War (book 2, chapter 14, verse 4), that "the twelfth year of the reign of Nero" was actually "the seventeenth year of the reign of Agrippa II." Taking the regnal years of the Caesars into account, this takes us back to the 9th year of Claudius Caesar's reign when he reinstated Agrippa II as the king of Judea. It was only 5 or 6 years later, however, during the first year of Nero's reign (after Claudius Caesar had already died) that Agrippa II was also given kingship over "a certain part of Galilee, Tiberias, Taricheæ and Julias," just as we read in Josephus' Antiquities (book 20, chapter 8, verse 4). This makes Agrippa II the legitimate king over Judea, Galilee and Perea. I'm not sure what you mean by saying "Archelaus is missing," as he too (Herod Archelaus) was the legitimate king of Judea, albeit ruling only over one-half of his father's kingdom (called "ethnarch"), just as we read in Antiquities 17.11.4. The titles "ethnarch" and "tetrach" do not diminish from the fact that these are still kings, albeit kings over territories divided among other kings. A tetrach is defined as the governor of one of four divisions of a country or province. For your information: Agrippa is called in our Jewish historical records as "the king" (Heb. אגריפס המלך), just as we find in the Mishnah (Sotah 7:6) and in the Midrash Rabba (Leviticus Rabba 3:5).Davidbena (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)